Continuing from my previous post about Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, I think what I am basically trying to say about Hugo Chavez is that he is an ambiguous figure.  He is ambiguous because he has done many good things, including redistributing wealth and providing better healthcare, and promoting literacy, but he has also done many negative things like curtailing political freedoms and befriending countries with poor, undemocratic rights records.

There is a tendency among many people to become polarized and either be totally against, or totally for, a certain person or issue.  But in some cases, the actual reality of the situation requires a more moderate, even tempered attitude and approach.  Chavez inspires adulation from many, but is strongly denounced by others who oppose him.  I’m suggesting perhaps the truth is in the middle somewhere- which is perhaps why there are two considerably sized camps opposed to each other.

The original post was: Chavez is Going Too Far Despite Alleged Benefits of “Socialism in” Venezuela

Since I wrote the original post, Chavez did again the very thing that I mentioned in the post:  he went to Iran in what could be described as a friendly diplomatic visit.  In contrast, Chavez’s approach to the US has almost always been confrontational.  It seems a little bit imbalanced.

Chavez’s actions are dubious, especially in the context of the recent Iranian elections, which revealed, at least, that Iran is deeply divided about the direction the country should go in.  The harsh methods used to deal with the protestors, as well, makes the Iranian regime look dirtier, less respectable than before.  (Of course, to some they already had no credibility.)  Iran is a country where democracy is not really functioning, where democracy does not define the most powerful parts of the state- the Ayatollah, the Revolutionary Guards, and other un-elected government organs.  Therefore, it is only partly democratic, and the ability and practice of the authorities of selecting out any undesirable reformist candidates at their own whim, makes it even less democratic.

Chavez likes to style himself as a friend of the people.  But if he were really a friend of the people, he would realize that people’s rights consist of not only having a meal on the table, but being able to say what they think about the people who rule over them.   Its not only being able to go to a clinic that matters, but also having the power to vote and change the regime in your country, so that the will of the people triumphs over the whim of the powerful.  However, judging by Chavez’s foreign policy of lauding and befriending governments which are undemocratic and limit people’s rights and freedoms, one has to wonder whether he really is a friend of the people.